Motives, Metaphors, and Religious Speech

by Chris Borgen

One aspect of Amos’ proposal that I think needs to be emphasized is that he suggests curtailing certain types of speech because of certain hoped-for practical advantages in counter-terrorism. It is, essentially, a utilitarian argument. However, taking his suggestion on its own terms, I am not persuaded that the U.S. undertaking a new policy of curtailing religious speech would in fact enhance security. As Mark Movsesian mentioned in his recent post, I look forward to some concrete examples of how Amos suggests effectuating such a policy. But, based on my current understanding of Amos’s proposal, I think that regulating religious speech in the interest of national security would at best have little impact and at worst may be counterproductive.

The problem of being ineffective comes is due to two independent problems: the problem of secular terrorism and the problem of metaphorical speech.

Mark Movsesian laid out the secular terrorism issue in his two posts and I largely agree with his observations and argument. I would like to underscore that terrorism around the world is just as often (if not more often) wrapped-up in the language of nationalism, race, class, or ethnicity. To target religious speech would be target only part of the overall problem of terrorism. I am as yet unconvinced that this would warrant such a profound incursion into the First Amendment.

Moreover, it is unclear to me that the root cause of much of today’s supposedly religious terrorism is in fact religion. So many of the “foot soldiers” of terrorism are recruited out of slums where there is little sense of hope. Yes, there are also the Mohammed Attas of the world, relatively well-off and willing to murder civilians for a religious cause—but the story of terrorism recruitment is still primarily a story of targeting people (usually adolescent boys) who have little hope for a better future. Desperationis the lifeblood of terrorism; religious speech is often simply a motivational and organizational technique. Strike at religious speech and you have not eradicated the root of terrorism; it will simply continue under one of the secular organizational logics (class, race, nation, etc.) that are used so often.

There is also the problem of metaphorical speech. While issuing a proclamation that someone must be killed is clear enough, what do we make of a cry from a pulpit for “God to rain down his judgment on [some person or people]?” Is that an actual call to violence? What if one asks for “lashes of fire”(to use Amos’s example)? Some might view that as merely metaphorical language. Others may interpret it as an order for a hit. Would Amos suggest an regulating religious speech beyond our current laws concerning incitement? If so, to prohibit metaphorical language that could be interpreted as a call to violence is to give the secular government the role of religious interpreter. This would not only degrade religious speech but place the government in a no-win situation in which it would essentially have to decide which religious speech or metaphor is important to a religion and which is not. The true bad actors can always further hide their intentions in further coded or metaphorical language.

These concerns all make me wonder whether the regulation of religious speech in the interest of national security would be effective. But I am also concerned that it would actually be counter-productive. If terrorist recruiters feed on a sense of grievance, of “otherness,” then we would ratify their arguments by outlawing people simply talking about God or religion in the way that they want. Even if each assessment was on a case-by-case (or metaphor-by-metaphor?)basis, given the risk of misinterpreting a religious tradition that one does not understand well, there is a real risk of over-regulation the U.S. government of Islamic religious speech and possibly “under-regulating” ostensibly Christian speech. Each such slip-up either way could be a public relations bonanza for the al Qaedas of the world. Better, perhaps, to leave theology to the theologians.

http://opiniojuris.org/2010/09/30/motives-metaphors-and-religious-speech/

2 Responses

  1. Re: “it is unclear to me that the root cause of much of today’s supposedly religious terrorism is in fact religion.”

    I think you’re onto something here, and precious few individuals seem able to appreciate this possibility. With respect to contemporary self-proclaimed jihadists, for instance, consider the argument of Graham E. Fuller in A World Without Islam (2010). Fuller notes, for instance, that “Probably no other region of the world has endured such intense and sustained intervention from the West than the Middle East.” And the darker effects of this intervention, which do not hinge on the fact of Muslim identity as such, are deep and widespread: “The cumulative anger, frustration and radicalism that this history of intervention has produced are abundantly evident.” “Thus, to examine the vehicle [of resistance and violent response]–in this case, Islam–for flaws and problems, as if it were itself somehow the source of the resistance problem, is to utterly miss the point.”

    In short,

    “Religion will always be invoked wherever it can to galvanize the public and to justify major campaigns, battles, and wars, especially in monotheistic cultures. But the causes, campaigns, battles, and wars are not about religion. Take away the religion, and there are still causes, campaigns, battles, and wars.”

    Indeed.

  2. Islam is a misunderstood religion and has been for sometime. 

    Though the author does not direclty implicate Islam, he does more than point the finger by mentioning coutnries such as the US, UK and Israel - with recent successful or attemped bombings by ‘self proclaimed jihadists” 

    The making of terrorists groups is not unique to religion as equated by this Mr. Amos.  There are/were freedom fighters whom were labeled as insurgents, rebels and terrorists. The IRA, Tamil Tigers, numerous communist rebel groups in S. America anmd then numerous army backed terrorist aournf the world.

    “For decades, the combination of corrupt government, poor infrastructure and spotty public security in many Latin American countries has made it easy for foreign and domestic terrorists to gain a foothold. As a result, one-third of the terrorist organizations operating worldwide, are located or operate in Latin America. ”

    Colombia’s insurgent rebel groups are linked to international drug and arms traffickers spread throughout the hemisphere and across the Atlantic, with a combined income exceeding the resources of …Osama bin Laden.
    In Paraguay, the contraband market is larger than the formal economy

    http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1489.html

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.